CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 25-00160 — CASE

DOHA Record Explorer

ISCR Case 25-00160

A decided public DOHA case, shown for research — not advice or a prediction.

Case Profile
Decision Date3/4/2026
Statusdenied
LevelHEARING
TypeSTANDARD ISCR
Participants
Applicant Representation: Pro Se
Judge: Darlene Lokey Anderson
Government Counsel: Aubrey M. De Angelis
Case Summary
The applicant, a 61-year-old Test Engineer with a defense contractor, sought a security clearance for the first time after submitting his application on November 27, 2023. The Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 7, 2025, citing concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline B (Foreign Influence), and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The allegations included a 2019 arrest for corporal injury to a spouse and concerns regarding foreign contacts, particularly his wife and mother-in-law, who are citizens of the Philippines.
During the hearing, the applicant admitted to the arrest but denied any criminal charges, explaining that the incident involved a confrontation with his wife, who he claimed was intoxicated and aggressive. He asserted that he did not injure her, despite the sheriff's report indicating visible injuries. The applicant also discussed his wife's background and their family ties to the Philippines, including her recent purchase of a condominium there. He maintained that his wife and step-daughters, who are permanent U.S. residents, provide financial support to his mother-in-law in the Philippines.
The administrative judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that he had not engaged in conduct that demonstrated a lack of judgment or candor, as the evidence did not support the claims of injury. Additionally, the judge found that the applicant's foreign contacts did not pose a significant risk to national security, given the context of his family relationships and the nature of his wife's ties to the Philippines. The judge emphasized that the applicant's disclosures during the security clearance process were truthful and that the absence of formal charges against him further supported his case.
Guidelines Evaluated
- Guideline BForeign Influence · Against Applicant
- Guideline EPersonal Conduct · For Applicant
- Guideline FFinancial Considerations · Against Applicant
Similar decisions
Other decisions whose allegations read most like this one. Descriptive similarity of the allegations only — not a prediction.
Finding similar decisions…

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 25-00160

deniedMar 4, 2026· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 61-year-old Test Engineer was denied a security clearance due to unmitigated concerns under Guideline B (Foreign Influence) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations under these guidelines, as well as Guideline E (Personal Conduct).

Regarding personal conduct, the applicant was arrested for domestic violence but denied wrongdoing, and the administrative judge found these concerns were mitigated. However, the applicant's foreign contacts raised significant concerns about divided allegiance, which were not mitigated under Guideline B.

Furthermore, the applicant's financial issues, including a history of failing to file taxes and significant debt, were not mitigated under Guideline F. Consequently, the administrative judge denied the security clearance based on the unmitigated foreign influence and financial considerations.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant successfully mitigated concerns under personal conduct.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

Guideline BraisedForeign Influence
Guideline FraisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

Guideline EappliedPersonal Conduct

Key Rule Quoted

“it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant national security eligibility and a security clearance.”

Procedural Posture

Decision DateMar 4, 2026

Cite For

Mitigation of Personal Conduct Concerns Under Guideline E
Foreign Influence Concerns Under Guideline B
Financial Considerations Under Guideline F

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.